I disagree with much of what you said in your recent article crowing over your ‘victory’ over Mr. Atzmon.

In paragraphs 1 and 2 you make the claim that Mr. Atzmon is an anti-Semite. You cite then to your own articles as proof, using the weasel word ‘reported’ to make your damaging claims. In thus ‘pseudo quoting’ Mr. Atzmon, you both misunderstand and prove his claim. Atzmon criticizes mere rule-followers who focus on the rules rather than the ethics of the law (the construction and destruction of Grenfell towers being an apt example). Use of the word ‘reported’ is another example of following the letter rather than the spirit of the law.

You also cite a twitter comment from 2014, quoted without context. The comment seems to me to be referring to a set of characteristics, but in any case provides little evidence.

In paragraph 3 you openly admit that you try to interfere with Mr. Atzmon’s music career by attempting to have him banned from venues where he is contractually bound to play. Then, after trying to interfere with Atzmon’s source of income, in paragraph 4 you seem to complain that Atzmon does not have the ability, as you claim to have, to work “without making a penny,” and is forced to ask for financial support to defend your libel suit against him.

In paragraph 5 you whine that Atzmon ‘did not show his face’ at the hearing. Is your argument that Atzmon ought to be a lawyer as well as a beleaguered (by you) saxophonist and a philosopher?

In paragraphs 6 you cite Justice Nicklen’s decision. Notable in the Judge’s decision was the ruling that Atzmon claimed you achieved your aims through fraud, a claim that Atzmon neither made nor could defend.

paragraph 7 Again, Mr. Atzmon’s task of defending himself was made impossible by the judge’s decision. He could not defend what he did not say. While you brag of the substantial damages and costs you extracted from Mr. Atzmon, it should be noted that the damages go to you personally as the claimant and not to the CAA.

While I’m not sure why you criticize Mr. Atzmon for not appearing in court when no such need exists, the statement he had made was, of course, demanded by you.

paragraph 8 Was Atzmon’s defeat a humiliation? While you brag of bringing to court those you perceive as anti-Semites, no such finding was made about Mr. Atzmon. The court simply ruled unfavorably on the definition of his speech. As an American and a fan of the first amendment, I see the case as a ‘humiliation’ of the British justice system.

Finally, you say you have exposed Mr. Atzmon as an “anti-Semitic liar.” There was, of course, no such ruling.